Why is the US letting so many people over the border?
It seems that the US is letting a lot of people in all of a sudden at least according to the news lately, but I was wondering why, or what the reason is? At least according to this news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHQC1HeJ5VA
Also if they are allowing anyone to go in and move to the city they want, that makes me wonder, I'm Canadian and was thinking of moving to the US, does this mean it's the best shot of doing so without a green card?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHQC1HeJ5VA
Also if they are allowing anyone to go in and move to the city they want, that makes me wonder, I'm Canadian and was thinking of moving to the US, does this mean it's the best shot of doing so without a green card?
Well...
You could learn Spanish, and then travel to El Salvador. Then start walking north. Walk the length of Guatemala, and Mexico. Trudge across the Sonora Desert in northern Mexico. Arrive at the US's southern border. Claim to be a Salvadoran, and claim that you're fleeing Salvadoran gangs, and death squads. And then...see if they give you asylum, and let you in.
Worth a try.
But just walking south from your home in Canada to the US's northern border, and just telling them the truth that you're a Canadian wouldnt work because you're just trying emigrate, you're not seeking asylum from persecution so its not the same thing as these refugees in question.
Mate, nobody, and I mean *nobody* wants Canadians entering their country.
Agreed.
I enjoy Sky News, but I can see biases cropping up there in some quarters, also.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Doesn't Fox News usually report negatively on anything Democrats do? I'd say it's to be expected that they will be hostile to anything Biden does and therefore take negative reporting from Fox with a grain of salt.
That's not to say their criticisms never have elements of truth within them, only that their biases are too deeply ingrained to make their reporting trust worthy.
Yes they report on a lot of negative things they do, but since democrats are in the white house, I always prefer hearing on bad news in the white house. If republicans were in the white house, than I guess CNN would do better reporting on the bad news? It seems that way last year.
So I guess when deciding on which news source is better on white house reporting, it depends on who is in the white house?
So I guess when deciding on which news source is better on white house reporting, it depends on who is in the white house?
No. All you are doing is setting yourself up to get everything that's going on presented by someone who thinks it's a catastrophe.
I suggest reading books about the complexities of the modern world, and look for as mildly biased news sources as you can find.
Yes, they are all biased, but they're not all biased to the same extent. And then there's crazy propaganda like FOX NEWS and Breitbart and RP. Their job in the information war is to confuse and create emotional reactions, not to inform, not even to inform with bias.
Noam Chomsky wrote an awful lot about the news media. The recommendation I took away from it was to read newspapers that are providing information to rich and powerful people, like the financial times.
You'll find, an awful lot of things most news outlets and especially propaganda chaneels are concerned with aren't even talked about by the financial times. Is it because rich people don't need to know about the "massive influx of immigrants" - or is that because the influx of immigrants isn't as "massive" and/or problematic as FOX NEWS pretends it is?
You will also find there are a lot of news on FT that don't show up on FOX. But who do you think is more likely to ignore really important things, FT, the newspaper of the rulers of the world, or FOX, the tv channel that occasionally veers into QAnon territory?
_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.
So I guess when deciding on which news source is better on white house reporting, it depends on who is in the white house?
No. All you are doing is setting yourself up to get everything that's going on presented by someone who thinks it's a catastrophe.
I suggest reading books about the complexities of the modern world, and look for as mildly biased news sources as you can find.
Yes, they are all biased, but they're not all biased to the same extent. And then there's crazy propaganda like FOX NEWS and Breitbart and RP. Their job in the information war is to confuse and create emotional reactions, not to inform, not even to inform with bias.
Noam Chomsky wrote an awful lot about the news media. The recommendation I took away from it was to read newspapers that are providing information to rich and powerful people, like the financial times.
You'll find, an awful lot of things most news outlets and especially propaganda chaneels are concerned with aren't even talked about by the financial times. Is it because rich people don't need to know about the "massive influx of immigrants" - or is that because the influx of immigrants isn't as "massive" and/or problematic as FOX NEWS pretends it is?
You will also find there are a lot of news on FT that don't show up on FOX. But who do you think is more likely to ignore really important things, FT, the newspaper of the rulers of the world, or FOX, the tv channel that occasionally veers into QAnon territory?
Oh okay. I am not sure if Fox veers into QAnon or not, they didn't do anything for me to suspect that. I can't watch CNN a lot because they often don't seem to talk about events, so much as get into arguments with each other over race, and gender, and it feels scripted and fake, and gets on my nerves sometimes. Fox News doesn't have near as much in house fighting, but I do acknowledge that they seem to leave things out of their stories.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder
So I guess when deciding on which news source is better on white house reporting, it depends on who is in the white house?
No matter what I'd stick to a broad selection of sources. Most mainstream news tends to have a strong establishment bias, Fox News has both an establishment bias and a pro-Republican Party bias. Look into who owns these different media companies and you'll see where some of their biases come from. If the same entity owns weapons manufacturing companies and media companies you can bet they're going to sensationalize violence and be very hesitant to condemn potential military conflict.
The more transparently right wing news has a strong right wing bias but also is quite hostile to parts of the GOP since they're mostly aligned with the Tea Party/Trump/WN bloc.
Progressive news has pretty obvious biases too and has been growing increasingly hostile towards the Democratic Party establishment.
Almost all news has a sensationalist bias. Usually publicly funded sources like TVO, PBS and similar are better in this regard than ones that have to return a profit. Stuff like BBC and CBC fall in between public broadcasters and privately run broadcasters.
Different sources will present different perspectives. Every source has built in biases, some intentional, others unintentional. If I only listened to Fox News and OAN I'd think Nancy Pelosi was both a socialist and a 'radical' liberal but since I also consume more progressive sources I'm aware that she isn't actually a socialist, that she isn't radical by any measure and that most reporting on right-wing sources describing her as radical rely on the audience having already bought into the Left Coast Commie-fornia meme that far-right circles have been peddling for decades.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
US Border Control is a Joke |
14 Feb 2024, 3:47 pm |
US to Reopen Border Crossings as Illegal Immigration Drops |
01 Feb 2024, 12:56 am |
What do people expect people of a certain age to look like? |
29 Feb 2024, 9:19 pm |
Why do people do this |
08 Feb 2024, 8:27 am |